It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
In other words, discriminating against race is bad, discriminating against political ideology is acceptable.
I feel like I am damn near alone trying to stop a civil war!
Well again, to you and all of the others on this thread downplaying this capitulation to violence, you have know credibility when actual right wing fascists start beating people and making threats to impede left wing speakers. These threats are perfectly acceptable, as long as the venue provides an alternative time and place.
If this means liberal speakers have to pay incredible amounts of money for security, and must speak at times and places where there will not be large crowds, that is fine by you.
This is going to happen, and yet you still blindly downplay the current situation because you think it benefits your team.
originally posted by: ImmortalLegend527
a reply to: DBCowboy
Good for Berkeley, it would have been embarrassing to have that kind of person and what she stands for, tarnish such a prestige school.Score a point for the good side.
originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Grambler
Probably a troll but who knows. That's the first post in this thread as far as I know defending this.
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: introvert
Thanks. Very interesting.
But this means that people on the Right were also threatening violence and protest if their demands were not met.
That sort of trashes the narrative of the "violent Left".
Cool. Narratives suck.
It's a sad turn of events. None of this would have happened if people were allowed to speak, and to hear said speeches, without threats of violence, threat and coercion.
Simple question, do you think that the civil rights leaders, who were asked by authorities to speak at different times or places to avoid violence, were responsible when they and their followers got attacked because they refused to capitulate to that violence?
originally posted by: neo96
Right to protest ?
Anyone care to point out where it says that in the first ?
www.law.cornell.edu...
Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
originally posted by: DBCowboy
originally posted by: Kali74
Free speech she hasn't even been denied.
And there we disagree.
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler
I've never said violence or threats of violence are acceptable. I've only said that it appears her rights were not stepped upon.
Please quote me where I said any such thing.